That's my understanding. Multiple attacks in AS&SH™ are always rolled at the same time on the attacker's initiative, not split over the round as in some games. The optional rule you cite essentially just changes the initiative roll to favour the combatant with longer reach.

I've actually tried both, and they both have a certain appeal. The method DMP mentions above is absolute. It keeps things simple, and resolution is quicker; in fact, it also works well with ranged attacks beating initiative, regardless of initiative results. Then there is the other way: If the combatant who loses initiative attacks at 2/1 rate or greater, and has reach, potentially you can have that 1e feel of attacks being split over the the round. It could look something like this:

Halberd Wielder (2/1) vs. Dagger Wielder (1/1)

Dagger wielder wins initiative. The two close in on each other, but because of the WC difference, and despite the loss of initiative, you could have halberd attack, dagger attack, halberd attack.

I'm partial to the latter, even though I've used the former more in practice. I'm curious how other folks might prefer it, as this might require clarification in the new printing. 

 

I also like to keep it simple, so I would rule all attacks took place at the same time.

Of course I usually forget about this rule anyway...

I'm divided: my inclination is for "all at once" (simpler, faster) most of the time and "split" (dramatic fights) some of the time. So "depends on circumstances" is my response. :-)

Handy Haversack wrote:

Don't the rules say that the attacker can choose to split his/her attacks up into phases 1 and 2 if s/he wants?

Well, technically the rules say a fighter with two attacks can move ½ and attack once in phase one, and then move ½ and attack again in phase two. I suppose that means he could do the same without moving if he so desired.